Western Free Presshttp://www.westernfreepress.com
Straight News & Strong Opinion. Arizona Politics and Arizona ElectionsSun, 02 Aug 2015 19:35:57 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3Hillary Lies Againhttp://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/08/02/hillary-lies-again/
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/08/02/hillary-lies-again/#commentsSun, 02 Aug 2015 19:35:57 +0000http://www.westernfreepress.com/?p=490895In a column I wrote in early July, based on research by my colleagues and my own analysis of government documents and eyewitness statements, I argued that in 2011 and 2012 then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waged a secret war on the governments of Libya and Syria, with the approval of President Obama and the consent of congressional leadership from both parties and in both houses of Congress.

I did err in that column with respect to an arms dealer named Marc Turi. I regret the error and apologize for it. I wrote that Turi sold arms to Qatar as part of Clinton’s scheme to get them into the hands of rebels. A further review of the documents makes it clear that he applied to do so but was denied permission, and so he did not sell arms to Qatar. Other arms dealers did.

I also erred when referring to Qatar as beholden to Washington. In fact, Qatar is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and is one of the biggest supporters of global jihad in the world — and Clinton, who approved the sales of arms to Qatar expecting them to make their way to Syrian and Libyan rebels, as they did, knew that. She and her State Department caused American arms to come into the possession of known al-Qaida operatives, a few of whom assassinated U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

When Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked Clinton in January 2013 at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing whether she knew of any weapons coming from the U.S. and going to rebels in the Middle East, she denied such knowledge. She either has a memory so faulty that she should not be entrusted with any governmental powers, or she knowingly lied.

It gets worse.

It now appears that Clinton was managing her war using emails that she diverted through a computer server owned by her husband’s charitable foundation, even though some of her emails contained sensitive and classified materials. This was in direct violation of federal law, which requires all in government who possess classified or sensitive materials to secure them in a government-approved venue.

The inspector general of the intelligence community and the inspector general of the State Department each have reviewed a limited sampling of her emails that were sent or received via the Clinton Foundation server, and both have concluded that materials contained in some of them were of such gravity that they were obliged under federal law to refer their findings to the FBI for further investigation.

The FBI does not investigate for civil wrongdoing or ethical lapses. It investigates behavior that may be criminal or that may expose the nation’s security to jeopardy. It then recommends either that indictments be sought or the matter be addressed through non-prosecutorial means. Given Clinton’s unique present position — as the president’s first secretary of state and one who seeks to succeed him, as well as being the wife of one of his predecessors — it is inconceivable that she could be prosecuted as Gen. David Petraeus was (for the crime of failing to secure classified materials) without the personal approval of the president himself.

Let’s be realistic and blunt: If the president wants Clinton prosecuted for failing to secure classified materials, then she will be, no matter the exculpatory evidence or any political fallout. If he does not want her prosecuted, then she won’t be, no matter what the FBI finds or any political fallout.

I have not seen the emails the inspectors general sent to the FBI, but I have seen the Clinton emails, which are now in the public domain. They show Clinton sending or receiving emails to and from her confidante Sid Blumenthal and one of her State Department colleagues using her husband’s foundation’s server, and not a secure government server. These emails address the location of French jets approaching Libya, the location of no-fly zones over Libya and the location of Stevens in Libya. It is inconceivable that an American secretary of state failed to protect and secure this information.

But it is not inconceivable that she would lie about it.

Federal statutes provide for three categories of classified information. “Top secret” is data that, if revealed, could likely cause grave damage to national security. “Secret” is data that, if revealed, could likely cause serious damage to national security. “Confidential” is data that, if revealed, could likely cause some damage to national security. Her own daily calendars, which she regularly emailed about, are considered confidential.

Clinton has repeatedly denied ever sending or receiving data in any of these categories. She probably will argue that an email that fails to use the terminology of the statute cannot be deemed classified. Here the inspectors general have corrected her. It is the essence of the data in an email — its potential for harm if revealed — that makes its contents classified and the failure to protect it a crime — not the use of a magic word or phrase in the subject line.

She is no doubt lying again, just as she did to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Yet the question remains: Why did she use her husband’s foundation’s computer server instead of a government server, as the law requires? She did that so she could obscure what the server recorded and thus be made to appear different according to history from how she was in reality. Why did she lie about all this? Because she thinks she can get away with it.

The other day John noted that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz stumbled badly when Chris Matthews asked her the difference between a Democrat and a socialist, between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Today Chuck Todd of NBC’s “Meet the Press” renewed the question, and Schultz doubles down on her clueless non-answer. This has gone from embarrassing to stunningly incompetent. It’s one thing to be unprepared for Chris Matthews asking the question in his typical machine-gun fashion, but she’s had several days to come up with a serious answer, and clearly can’t. Maybe because there isn’t one: It’s socialists all the way down in the Democratic Party today. Enjoy this 1:45 long pathetic spectacle:

When Secretaries Kerry and Moniz appear before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning, it’s likely they’ll face a number of serious questions about the holes in the Iran deal’s verification process.

Vigorous inspections and monitoring are key to any agreement that seeks to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Experts need unfettered access to Iran’s existing nuclear infrastructure, as well as any suspicious site.

We already know the proposed deal falls well short of the Obama administration’s promises for “anywhere, anytime 24/7” inspections. Inspectors will have “managed access” to declared sites, and Iran will be able to obstruct and evade inspections at other suspicious sites for at least 24 days – and possibly much longer.

But there’s another big problem with the verifications in the president’s proposed deal. The documents submitted to Congress say nothing about:

Whether Iran will actually have to come clean about its past nuclear work. Iran has consistently ignored its obligations under previous agreements to address the possible military dimensions (PMD) of its nuclear program. Now it’s critical that inspectors finally know just how close Iran came to producing a nuclear weapon to verify with certainty it won’t be able to acquire one in the months ahead. And they need to know if any other sites in Iran have been used secretly for nuclear research and production. These disclosures are “most important because they help set the stage for all other measures,” says John Lauder, director of the DCI Nonproliferation Center.

Inspector access to the Parchin military site – where it is believed Iran tested detonators for nuclear missiles. Iran has refused inspectors access to the Parchin site for years, and has taken extensive action to try and cover up its work there. In 2013, satellite images showed the Iranians bulldozing buildings, removing roads, and excavating large swaths of ground at the complex.

Congress recently discovered the United States and the other members of the P5+1 left these issues for the IAEA and Iran to hash out in secret. Since then, it’s been suggested the IAEA may allow Iran to simply check a box to address the PMDs of its nuclear program, and accept soil samples supplied by Iran in lieu of access to Parchin.

Until we know what’s actually in these agreements, we’re left to ask questions like these:

Is the IAEA being pressured to accept terms that fail to provide inspectors full access and disclosure?

Why should Iran be trusted to provide soil samples from Parchin?

Without full access and disclosure, how will the world know Iran has truly given up its drive for a nuclear bomb before it gains billions of dollars in sanctions relief?

Iran’s nuclear chief says the broader nuclear agreement “will continue separate from the results” of the IAEA’s reports on its past nuclear activities – leading many to refer to these agreements on PMDs and Parchin as “side deals.” Not true says the White House.

“I would describe this as an important component of the agreement and not be dismissed by some as some sort of side deal,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday.

That’s encouraging news, because the Iran Nuclear Review Act requires the president to turn over all relevant and related documents to Congress for a deal.

Now the White House needs to answer Speaker Boehner’s call for these important documents to be provided to Congress and the American people for review.

– See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/general/important-component-iran-deal-still-secret?Source=GovD#sthash.WKnPHNLY.dpuf

Rubio apparently is the first presidential candidate to take a stand against AFFH. For this he deserves credit. As Stanley Kurtz says, “It’s good to see that Rubio is balancing his growing interest in ‘reform conservative’ ideas for opening up opportunities to the less-well-off with full-throated opposition to Obama’s government overreach.”

It will be interesting to see whether additional GOP presidential contenders take on AFFH. Of particular note will be the stance (or lack of one) of candidates like Jeb Bush who associate themselves with reform conservatism.

What are the prospects for defunding AFFH? It seems like a long-shot. However, Kurtz writes:

It’s not impossible that Republicans in Congress might succeed in defunding or repealing AFFH. Much depends on the precise form in which funding for HUD is passed, as a separate bill or as part of a massive omnibus spending bill. Obama has his veto power, but it’s conceivable that he will receive an AFFH defund amendment in a larger bill that he finds difficult to veto.

The conservative public should not be bystanders in this process. We should make known our strong views about this astounding federal power grab by contacting our Senators and Representatives.

Our vocal opposition will influence the extent to which the Republican leadership in Congress fights to keep defunding amendments in a final bill. And our level of interest will influence the extent to which Republican presidential contenders treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves.

The more vigorously Republican contenders push against AFFH, the greater the pressure will be for Hillary Clinton to talk about the issue, which has landed, literally, at the gated entrance of her home.

]]>http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/08/02/the-fight-against-affh-comes-to-the-senate/feed/0Trump Slammed Geller’s Fight for Free Speech (He’s no conservative!)http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/08/02/trump-slammed-gellers-fight-for-free-speech-hes-no-conservative/
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/08/02/trump-slammed-gellers-fight-for-free-speech-hes-no-conservative/#commentsSun, 02 Aug 2015 16:44:42 +0000http://www.westernfreepress.com/?p=500018I’ve been confounded by the so-called “conservative” electorate’s infatuation with this bloviating buffoon. There’s almost nothing conservative or even moderate about his views. If Trump is clueless enough to vilify Pam Geller’s Draw Mohammed contest as “disgusting” and “insulting,” how will he fight the global jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of America?

For all of you conservatives out there, did you know that the Donald was pro-abortion, has supported and donated to Hillary Clinton, has been pro-illegal immigration, is good buddies with Chuck Schumer, has favored a single-payer health care system (Obamacare) and is unopposed to the Kelo decision, which enables the state to confiscate private property?

Trump is hardly a trailblazing conservative who will scale back the “fundamental transformation of America.”

It’s hard not to be in Donald Trump’s corner when his targets are the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

McCain may justifiably be indignant over Trump’s stupid and clumsy savaging of him for having such poor taste as to be captured in Vietnam, but the Arizona senator displayed judgment that was just as poor when he claimed Michele Bachmann’s entirely reasonable questions about Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood ties manifested an “ignorance” that “defame[d] the spirit of the nation.”

So when it comes to John McCain and Donald Trump, it’s blowhard versus boor. But that doesn’t excuse Trump. His current position at the top of the polls — and the very real possibility that he could continue to bestride the narrow Republican field like a Colossus while his petty rivals walk under his huge legs and peep about to find themselves dishonorable graves — is a sign of how much American politics has turned into an Oprah show of celebrity worship, lurid . . . keep reading

Just when you think The Simpsons is finally going to run out of material, along comes Donald Trump with a tolerably accurate real life imitation of Montgomery Burns. The Washington Post helpfully assembled this “Who Said It?” quiz of statements that could plausibly have come from either person, such as:

“By building a casino, I can tighten my stranglehold on this dismal town!”

And:

“In life you have to rely on the past, and that’s called history.”

I guessed eight out of ten correctly. But then I’ve watched way too many episodes of The Simpsons.

At the site of the Gatestone Institute Amir Taheri explores the book published in Iran by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Taheri’s column on the book is published there under the heading “The ayatollah’s plans for Israel and Palestine.” Taheri has also adapted his Gatestone column into a piece for the New York Post published as “Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel.” Taheri’s columns are of great interest. They don’t tell us anything we don’t already know, but they nevertheless add depth to what we already know.

Our Supreme Leader thinks that we can do business with Islamic Republic of Iran. He wants to set Iran up as a constructive regional power. He is in the process of financing and facilitating Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and otherwise strengthening the regime. Our Supreme Leader is going into partnership with their Supreme Leader.

Their Supreme Leader has Israel and Jews on the brain. Their Supreme Leader thinks that Israel must be destroyed: “Khamenei makes his position clear from the start,” Taheri writes. “Israel has no right to exist as a state.” Taheri observes that their Supreme Leader “uses three words.” One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The second is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval” meaning “effacement.” Taheri explains:

Khamenei insists that he is not recommending “classical wars” to wipe Israel off the map. Nor does he want to “massacre the Jews.” What he recommends is a long period of low-intensity warfare designed to make life unpleasant if not impossible for a majority of Israeli Jews so that they leave the country.

His calculation is based on the assumption that large numbers of Israelis have double-nationality and would
prefer emigration to the United States and Europe to daily threats of death.

Khamenei makes no reference to Iran’s nuclear program. But the subtext is that a nuclear-armed Iran would make Israel think twice before trying to counter Khamenei’s strategy by taking military action against the Islamic Republic.

In Khamenei’s analysis, once the cost of staying in Israel has become too high for many Jews, Western powers, notably the US, which have supported the Jewish state for decades, might decide that the cost of doing so is higher than possible benefits.

Our Supreme Leader thinks this is all for “domestic consumption,” or subject to some cost-benefit analysis known only to Obama himself. That’s not the way it works with anti-Semitism or Islamism, but the regime is reaping benefits galore courtesy of President Obama anyway. And our Supreme Leader hasn’t done much to detract from their Supreme Leader’s analysis:

Khamenei counts on what he sees as “Israel fatigue.” The international community would start looking for what he calls “a practical and logical mechanism” to end the old conflict.

Khamenei’s “practical and logical mechanism” excludes the two-state formula in any form.

“The solution is a one-state formula,” he declares. That state, to be called Palestine, would be under Muslim rule but would allow non-Muslims, including some Israeli Jews who could prove “genuine roots” in the region to stay as “protected minorities.”

Adolf Hitler published Mein Kampf (in English, “My Struggle”) in 1925 and 1926, seven or eight years before he took office as Chancellor of Germany in 1933. It’s a shame that the British didn’t attend to it when it became relevant to dealing with Hitler in office. Looking back after the war, Churchill wrote with his customary brilliance that “there was no book which deserved more careful study from the rulers, political and military, of the allied powers. All was there…Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”

How thoughtful of Iran’s Supreme Leader to give us Palestine — his Kampf, you might say — as we go into partnership with him.

]]>http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/08/02/khamenis-kampf/feed/0Laughing Over Dead Babies? Media Boredhttp://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/08/02/laughing-over-dead-babies-media-bored/
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/08/02/laughing-over-dead-babies-media-bored/#commentsSun, 02 Aug 2015 14:30:41 +0000http://www.westernfreepress.com/?p=486568The Center for Medical Progress has now issued a third recording of Planned Parenthood officials explaining their grotesque trafficking in baby body parts. It is even more devastating than the first two.

The “news” media barely covered the second installment. They will probably pass over this one altogether. Trump World is apparently far more important than the extermination of babies for profit.

The star of the new video is Holly O’Donnell, a young phlebotomist who worked for six months as a “procurement technician” for a company called Stem Express, which buys baby “specimens” from Planned Parenthood. She thought she would just be drawing blood. She had no idea she’d be called to dissect babies. She fainted on her first day of training after being instructed to pick up a baby’s leg with a pair of tweezers.

“It’s a pretty sick company,” O’Donnell says.

She discussed how she worked inside Planned Parenthood clinic where the baby remains were brought to her to prepare for sale.

“For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage,” she explained. “No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated.” The technicians were asked to harvest “certain tissues,” O’Donnell said, including brain, liver, heart and “pretty much anything on the fetus.”

The video turns visually gruesome when a hidden camera showed a tiny 11.6-week baby placed on a light tray, enabling them to discuss how much they could get for the parts, as if this were a Buick in a junkyard. Dr. Savita Ginde of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains in Denver explained they prefer to set compensation by the item: “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

Then it even shows Dr. Ginde looking down at a tray of baby kidneys saying “If I looked at that, I’d be like ‘that’s good to go'” — and she laughs about it. A medical assistant says “Five stars!” They’re laughing at Planned Parenthood as they carefully tweeze babies apart.

CMP has also released a document from StemExpress laying out that the “procurement technicians” are paid $10 per hour, plus a “per tissue or blood bonus.” Bonuses range from $75 per tissue for “Category A” fetal tissues (such as brain, heart, lungs, liver) to $10 per tissue for “Category C” products (such as maternal blood or umbilical-cord blood). The more “specimens” collected by the technician, the higher the bonus for each item.

How can our media elites look at these videos and just bury them? Politico reported Planned Parenthood hired the crisis communications team at SKDKnickerbocker, who circulated a memo pressuring reporters and producers from showing any more videos, “arguing they were obtained under false identification and violated patient privacy.”

Never mind that there are no patients shown in these videos to date, or that these national journalists have themselves used “false identification” in undercover stings. The vast majority of the media are easily pressured into silence, or embarrassing denials of grim reality.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Judge Sullivan entered the order on Friday afternoon. As of Saturday morning, Gerstein reports: “The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to an email Saturday morning seeking comment on the development.”